Whitehorse Daily Star

Convicted driver freed pending his appeal

A man convicted of impaired driving after a crash which severely injured two friends has been released from jail pending his appeal.

By Ashley Joannou on June 5, 2012

A man convicted of impaired driving after a crash which severely injured two friends has been released from jail pending his appeal.

Michael Schmidt was convicted of two counts of impaired driving causing bodily harm. He has spent about three months of his eight-month sentence in jail.

On Dec. 14, 2009, Schmidt was driving from Whitehorse to Haines Junction with Jessica Frotten and Michael Sanderson when his Honda car rolled on the Alaska Highway near the Takhini River Bridge.

Both Frotten and Sanderson were ejected from the vehicle. Frotten suffered a broken back, a torn aorta, broken feet, punctured lungs, several broken ribs and a concussion.

She also suffered a severe spinal injury and now uses a wheelchair.

Sanderson broke his right shoulder, left leg, multiple ribs and tore the ligaments in his left knee.

After a trial last fall, Schmidt was acquitted of two counts of dangerous driving and two counts of driving with a blood alcohol count of 0.08.

On Monday, in the B.C.-Yukon Court of Appeal, prosecutor Eric Marcoux said his office was not opposed to Schmidt's release.

Justice Christopher Hinkson placed a number of conditions on Schmidt.

They include having no contact with Frotten and taking all the steps necessary to make sure the appeal proceeds in a timely manner.

Since it was Schmidt who initiated the appeal, he is responsible for the $6,000 cost of creating transcripts of the initial trial for the appeal's judges, Hinkson said.

Schmidt, who represented himself at the hearing, told the judge he has $63,000 in unforgivable, unbankruptable debt and can't afford the transcripts.

He is currently in talks with legal aid officials to see if he can get help, he said.

The judge gave him a deadline of Aug. 5 to get the documents, or Schmidt may have to go back to jail.

Other conditions of his release include: remaining in the Yukon unless he has permission to leave, not consuming drugs nor alcohol and staying away from bars or any place that sells alcohol.

Schmidt is also banned from driving, though the judge said he could apply to have this changed if he needed to drive for work.

According to court documents, Schmidt plans to argue his Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms were violated when his breath sample was taken by the arresting RCMP officer because there was not enough evidence to demand a sample.

Schmidt has maintained that though he had been drinking beer at lunch prior to the crash, it did not impair his driving.

"The finding of my impairment was made on subjective grounds….” Schmidt says in the documents, adding that there were only "very minor and circumstantial” indicators of his impairment.

Frotten's mother, Shelagh, who was in the courtroom Monday, expressed frustration with the court's decision to release Schmidt pending his appeal.

"They both made a mistake, but Jessie doesn't get time off for good behaviour. I think this is wrong.”

She later added, "Jess made a mistake getting in the car, but he was the driver and ultimately responsible.”

The B.C.-Yukon Court of Appeal is in the territory all week and will next sit on Nov. 5.

Aside from Schmidt's case, judges are also scheduled to hear from both sides of a battle over mineral staking as well as those involved with the Ross placer mine on Dominion Creek.

By far, the three judges will be spending the most time during this visit hearing from both sides of a fight over mineral staking and the Quartz Mining Act.

A day and a half has been set a side to hear the case between the Yukon government and the Ross River Dena Council over mineral staking on traditional

territory.

In November 2011, Justice Ron Veale ruled the government is obligated to consult with the First Nation, but not until after a mineral claim has been issued.

The First Nation originally asked that the government be required to inform it before any claim is issued.

The government also filed an appeal of the decision.

The judges are also scheduled to hear the case of the former owner of a Dominion Creek gold mine who the Yukon Supreme Court ruled couldn't claim a valid lien against his own mine.

Yukon businessman Jon Rudolph was attempting to use Golden Hill Ventures – the oldest company in his multimillion-dollar construction, mining and personal financing conglomerate – to claim nearly $3 million against the Ross mine, a business he also once owned.

But late last year, a judge ruled that allowing the owner to claim a lien against his own mine contradicts the intention of the Miners Lien Act.

Comments (6)

Up 0 Down 0

flyingfur on Jun 13, 2012 at 6:27 am

Interesting chain of events. So Schmidt is charged and convicted, then sentenced, and after serving only a portion of the light sentence that he recieved he's released so that he can work to pay for his appeal. What do we call this because it sure as hell isn't justice.

Up 0 Down 0

Michael Tillmann on Jun 11, 2012 at 2:48 pm

Bobby,

As eggs stated, the two charges are different. There is the crime of driving or having care/control of a motor vehicle while over 0.08 and there is a separate crime called driving or having care/control of a motor vehicle while impaired. You can be guilty of both, one or neither.

To be guilty of "over 0.08" they must prove that, at the time you drove or had control of a motor vehicle, there was more than 80 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood in your body. For the other crime, "impaired", they only have to prove that you were impaired by alcohol or another drug, regardless of how much was in your body.

The judge ruled that it was not proven that the defendant was over 0.08, but it was proven that he had alcohol in his body and he was impaired by it.

Up 0 Down 1

eggs on Jun 10, 2012 at 3:23 pm

bb..they're two different charges.

Up 0 Down 0

bobby bitman on Jun 9, 2012 at 3:25 pm

"Michael Schmidt was convicted of two counts of impaired driving causing bodily harm."

"Schmidt was acquitted of two counts of dangerous driving and two counts of driving with a blood alcohol count of 0.08."

So which is it? He was acquitted of drunk driving, yet he is sentenced to 8 months in jail for drunk driving causing bodily harm? How does that work? This story makes no sense. There is some information missing.

Up 0 Down 0

logan W on Jun 8, 2012 at 9:49 am

You drove drunk... be a man, take the piddly 8 month sentence and learn from your mistakes.

Up 0 Down 0

Benjamin Franklin on Jun 7, 2012 at 2:46 am

Due process is my favorite kind of process.

Add your comments or reply via Twitter @whitehorsestar

In order to encourage thoughtful and responsible discussion, website comments will not be visible until a moderator approves them. Please add comments judiciously and refrain from maligning any individual or institution. Read about our user comment and privacy policies.

Your name and email address are required before your comment is posted. Otherwise, your comment will not be posted.